Young v. Repine (In re Repine)
Young v. Repine (In re Repine), 536 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2008)
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Decided
- 2008-07-22
- Docket
- 06-20807
What happened
After Mr. Repine filed bankruptcy, a lawyer kept pursuing collection against him in state court. The bankruptcy court found a willful stay violation and awarded damages and fees.
What the court decided
The Fifth Circuit affirmed that the violation was willful and upheld the award, including attorney's fees, except for the emotional-distress damages, which it vacated for lack of specific proof.
Why it may matter to you
The automatic stay is real and has teeth. If a sale or collection continues after you file, write down who, when and what — damages are possible.
Why it might not apply
Not a mortgage case (it was child-support collection). Emotional-distress damages need specific proof. Some stay exceptions apply to repeat filers.
Most useful when
- Someone kept collecting from you after you filed bankruptcy
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Young v. Repine (In re Repine), 536 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2008)Short formRepine, 536 F.3d 512Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Young v. Repine (In re Repine), 536 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2008), the court held that a creditor who knows of a bankruptcy and keeps pursuing collection willfully violates the automatic stay and may owe the debtor damages and attorney's fees. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Partial winBinding
Taggart v. Lorenzen
587 U.S. 554 · Decided 2019
After Mr. Taggart's debts were discharged, creditors pursued him for attorney's fees. The lower courts said creditors acting in good faith could not be held in contempt.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding
City of Chicago v. Fulton
592 U.S. 154 · Decided 2021
Chicago impounded cars for unpaid fines. After the owners filed Chapter 13, the city kept the cars, and the owners said that violated the automatic stay.
Read the case - Homeowner wonBinding
Till v. SCS Credit Corp.
541 U.S. 465 · Decided 2004
The Tills proposed a Chapter 13 plan paying their truck lender at 9.5% — the prime rate plus a risk adjustment. The lender wanted its 21% contract rate.
Read the case